No that process is fine however if the past information can't stand up to the scrutiny of new data then those promulgating the new data should be able to say, "This is what was formerly taught but this is why it is no longer accurate."
That is not the case with this information. Instead they seem to be taking the intellectually dishonest route of trying to erase the old information from history like it was never the scientific consensus. That intellectual dishonesty makes me think that the new "data" are just assertions that can't stand up when compared to the former consensus.
